Tuesday, December 24, 2013

"Wrongful Birth"?

Should parents suing for “wrongful birth” raise these children?

Kristi Burton Brown for Live Action News recently reported on Brock and Rhea Wuth being awarded $50 million because their son, Oliver, was born with an “unbalanced chromosome translocation.” Just like the Levys,
who won a “wrongful birth” lawsuit because their daughter was born with
Down Syndrome, the Wuths would have chosen abortion for their son had
they known about his condition. And it seems that the Wuths particularly
consider their son to be a burden. Their lawyer mentioned that the
child, now five years old, will need “24/7 care for the rest of his life.”

I will admit that it can be frustrating that, as The Seattle Times reported, there was a mistake with the lab:

According to court papers in the wrongful-birth case,
Valley ordered a prenatal test that can be counted on to find this type
of chromosomal abnormality only when the lab receives additional
information — a “road map,” essentially — showing it where to look for
the specific problem. Valley failed to send that information to the lab,
and never told Rhea Wuth that without the additional directions, the
test results might not answer the crucial question.
Although the lab’s own procedures specify it should follow up with a
phone call when such information is missing, that call was not made,
said the family’s lawyer, Todd Gardner, of Renton.
The lab missed the translocation. Had the couple known of the genetic
defect, they would have ended the pregnancy, according to court filings
in the case.
The verdict is the largest individual award in Washington state
history, according to Jury Verdicts Northwest, which tracks jury awards.

The piece also concludes with a statement from the parents’ lawyer:

The Wuths, who are both teachers, were “incredibly
responsible” in seeking information and testing, Gardner said. “There
was nothing else they could have done.”

Despite any kind of unfortunate circumstance of the lab being found
of not doing the procedure correctly, it is worth wondering as to if the
Wuths are really deserving of $50 million. Also, it is the kind of
selfish, pro-abortion viewpoint that regards the Wuths as being
“incredibly responsible,” especially considering they would have aborted
their child. It also speaks to our society that demands, and wins, such
a large sum of money for being wronged.

Kristi’s piece for Live Action News concludes with a relevant piece from Rod Drehar for The American Conservative:

This is a horrible case, no doubt about it. I agree that
this family should get something for the expenses they have incurred and
will incur in caring for their child. But the only way that is
justified is if you accept their belief that the child should not be
alive. We mustn’t minimize the emotional pain this couple is going
through, but still, I cannot imagine going to court and claiming that I
was wronged because I wasn’t given the opportunity to exterminate the
disabled child I now care for. It’s gruesome.

I have to ask the Wuths, and the Levys as well, do they love their
child? Some may be taken aback at such a question, but when parents sue
over their child being disabled, a child they would have aborted, how
can they look at that child the same way? Perhaps their disabled
children will not be able to understand the concept, but that doesn’t
make it any less shameful. Nothing says “you are a burden to me” more so
than suing for and winning such large sums of money to ease the pain of
having such a child.

There is a way though where the parents wouldn’t have to deal with
such a child. If it really was so hard to have to raise a disabled child
as the one they conceived, they could have very well placed him or her
with a loving family. It may feel strange to give up one’s offspring at
first, but it’s a lot less strange than aborting that child or bemoaning
to the tune of demanding money. But then again, perhaps adoption does
not ease the pain and burden as much as winning $50 million does. What a
shameful culture we live in.

AND MORE, FROM MATT WALSH:

I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain
why we shouldn’t murder disabled children? If you don’t immediately
recognize the eugenic slaughter of handicapped babies as something
severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help
you understand.

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any
agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to
be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive
argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it,
requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs
wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the
other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never
OK to execute a disabled baby, or any baby, for any reason. In fact, in
my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of
children could be, without hyperbole, classified as THE worst thing. It
is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the
ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill
children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Let me say that again, because it’s a crucial point:

If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.

Literally anything else.

Slavery? Genocide? How can they be condemned? Of what sort of moral
standard have they fallen short? If the bar has sunken low enough so
that infanticide can leap above it, then I doubt that any atrocity could
find a way to limbo underneath.

Believe it or not, even politically incorrect comments about
homosexuality have to be excused if we are to believe that baby killing
is a moral act.

I’m often told that I need to be more understanding on this topic,
but this is an unfair request. There are people — millions of them, in
fact — who think it should be legal to murder babies, but then illegal
to, say, pay a fast food worker less than minimum wage, or refuse to
bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. How could I possibly understand
this mentality? How could I wrap my head around the thought process that
leads one to conclude that the latter cases are so atrocious — so
dehumanizing — that they ought to be outlawed, but the former case is so
acceptable that it ought to be vigorously defended, and even funded, by
the federal government?

Understanding? No. I do not understand. I do not. And I hope that I
never do. CS Lewis wrote about the Abolition of Man, and reading his
book is the closest I can come to understanding a society that has
devolved into this kind of murderous insanity. He wrote:

“The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional
Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First
Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It
is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value
is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to
refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is
self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically
new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be
new systems or ideologies all consist of fragments from the Tao itself,
arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to
madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone
such validity as they posses.”
We have arbitrarily wrenched certain values from the One Source of
all values, and they have now swollen to madness in their isolation.

I say all of this because my initial intention was to sit down and write about the couple in Washington who just won a
50 million dollar “wrongful birth” settlement. Brock and Rhea Wuth sued
a hospital because their son was born severely disabled. No, they were
not alleging that the hospital caused the disability; they alleged that
the hospital (and a lab testing facility) did not run the correct tests
that would have detected the genetic defects while the child was still
in the womb. Had they been given the correct tests, they would have
known that the baby was “defective,” and then killed it. Tragically,
they were robbed of the opportunity to abort their son, so the hospital
must pay for the son’s care — for the rest of his life.

Oh, but don’t judge them: they still “love” their child. They wish he
was dead, they wish they had killed him, but they still “love” him.
Make no judgments. Offer no stern words. They sued a hospital for not
giving them the chance to kill their child, but do not think yourself
qualified to condemn such a thing.

Or that’s what I’ve been told, anyway.

So I sat down and intended to write about this case. I was going to
explore all of the angles. I was going to point out, as a secondary
issue, how these “wrongful birth lawsuits” (this one is hardly the
first) will serve to make it even more expensive to have a baby at a
hospital. Think of the liability issues involved if medical
establishments can now be sued for not killing your baby. I was
going to explain how this story is an inevitable side effect of the
death cult philosophy which tells us that human life is worthless, and a
parent’s right to convenience and comfort can trump a child’s right to
the life God gave it. I was going to point out how the Nazis also
murdered the disabled for the same reason we do: to rid society of those
who might be considered a “burden.”

Here’s an excerpt from Hitler’s Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring:

Since the National Revolution public opinion has become
increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the
continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline
in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the
increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the
hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of
having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and
those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing
unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the
community.

I was going to say that abortion apologists have, in more than one
way, aligned themselves with one of the most wicked political regimes in
the history of mankind.

I was going to explain why this is not a good thing.

I was going to explain why disabled children shouldn’t be murdered.

I was going to explain why all children, disabled or not, should be protected.

I was going to, but I can’t. These facts are self evident, and I can’t explain a self evident fact. I’m not that good.

If you don’t understand, I can’t make you. All I can do is pray for your soul.

1 Comments:

Ciccio said...

Last night I was watching some old Dave Allen shows. If you don't know him he was, in my opinion, one of the best - ever- British comedians. Many of his jokes attacked the hypocrisy of the day and foreshadowed things to come. This is from the 70's:

Met a guy who told me he was leaving England. I asked him why and he told me because of homosexuality. he explained, 400 years ago if you were found to be homosexual, you were hanged, drawn and quartered. Two hundred years ago you were hanged. A hundred years ago you were jailed. Fifty years ago you were fined in court. Now you were given a warning. He wanted to leave before it was made compulsory.

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~